Oh-Kay... D3100.. I have bought two of them, one for daughter to do her GCSE & O-Level photo courses, and one for the O/H who felt left out! Damn good camera for not a lot of money! So money where my mouth is here I am not belittling the camera at all.
But, First up, the SLR outfit you have acquired is not particularly rare or valuable or precious, or 'new'. A pair of 'good' UV filters for those lenses would cost something in the order of £30, to offer 'protection' to an entire outfit that likely has a second hand value only in the region of £150 or so.. ignoring the matter of weather or not protection filters are a 'good idea' or not, you have to start there and ask, if they can ever possibly 'save' you more than they cost you.... and as far as investment 'protection' goes, if the value of he gear is worth spending anything to 'protect', is a filter the best bit of protection you can buy for it?
First bit of 'protection' I bought for my (shop-new) D3200 and then daughter's and O/H's (2nd hand) D3100's was actually a glass rear-screen protector. Actually cheaper than a UV filter, its fit and forget 'protection' of the back-screen, which IS a make or break component if damaged, and with polymer screen the more likely to get scratched, scuffed, chipped or bashed... glass screen over it does make it more prone to glare.. that's why I bought a DSLR so I can avoid that, looking through the optical view-finder... but if back-screen doing a high-school smart-phone impression.... (Is it like shiny shoes in the play-ground in my day? Do you wonder?.... if you had shiny new shoes, the entire forth form was compelled to stamp on them to suitably 'distress' them? Now, in the new millennia, If you have a smart-phone with a complete compliment of pixels, do they have to play table-tens or something with it until there's a liquid-crystal gash or three across the screen?) .. If the back-screen bludgered, actually turning the camera 'on' and selecting settings can be almost impossible.. and a back-screen is probably more expensive to buy off e-bay, IF you can get one, and fit it DIY, than a second hand lens if damaged... £15 of protection vs a £100 replacement 'body' is still a tight call, but, ease and probability with which a back-scree may get damaged, if the camera put on its back on the table, or something is chaffing against it in the camera bag, does to my mid make it more 'useful' protection than a UV filter. which is only protecting the front element when the lens-cap is taken off....
Next 'bit' of useful protection bought, was actually a camera bag, to protect the whole camera against handling damage, and to try and keep all the bits together. Remember spends more time on the shelf or n transport than in your hands, THAT is whe its more likely to get damaged! But even here, that protection is no substitute for common sense, and telling the girl(s) ... (repeatedly!!!) NOT to leave the camera bodes knocking about loose, especially without the lenses and the back-caps or plugs fitted!
UV filters for 'protection'... I bought Kood ultra slim, I think they were around £10 each for my own lenses (that would actually take'em! the two expensive ones actually wont!) And similarly for the girls.
I the face of criticism.... IDGAS that the sensor should already have UV and IR filters in it, and its a redundant bit of kit and merely adding possible image degradation etc... if I was 'that' concerned about ultimate image quality, I wouldn't be shooting an entry level DSLR to begin with, and probably wouldn't be shooting digital or even an SLR at ALL!
In days of yore, pointing expensive film cameras at close range to rather fast motorbikes chucking sand in large rooster tails at my expensive lens and the like, suggested that such 'protection' was actually 'useful'.. not so much to stop lens front element getting scratched by flying crud.. which from riding a motorbike in such harsh conditions, and looking at the state of my helmet visor or googles after, ISN'T actually all that likely! FAR more likely is that I will do the scratching with a baby-wipe or similar trying to clean it off!.. Now if conditions or more likely ME do cause scratch to the font element, damn site cheaper and easier to replace a 'protection' filter than a front element or entire lens..... THEY CAN BE USEFUL! And if you are worried about image degradation and flare and the like in some stations you CAN take the 'off'! But like I say, if that was at the top of my list of worries, I probably wouldn't be shooting widgital or an entry level widgetal, anyway!
More pertinent in there, is that the lens is more likely to suffer from 'user damage' in ANY situation, from being dropped, to roughly cleaned, as it is any damage due to environment like sand spay or water ingress, for which a protection filter stands little change of offering complete 'protection'... bit like a motorbike crash hat... they can only save you hurt IF you crash, and then how much hurt is all situation dependent.... they wont stop you getting brain dead if you hit something hard enough, and if you don't hit anything that hard, may save any more hurt than a bobble-hat, whilst they aint going to stop you getting a broken leg!
Again, common sense has far more influence, NOT putting the camera down on the beach; not swapping lenses at the side of the track when bikes are chucking sand about, or when its raining, etc etc etc.
But as 'part' of an overall strategy from equipment protection, protection filters 'can' be quite useful, within limits, and that IS, I have to say, against the sort of damage likely, wiping rain off the front element with a sleeve or hanky, far more likely than taking track-side action shots in the rooster tails at Weston Beach-Races; And being dropped nose down off a car bonnet in a car-park? Well, you pays your money and your takes your chances! At that sort of level of potential damage, front element may be last thing to worry about, and a smashed body, or lens mount, focus elements kicked askew etc, its hoping a motorbike crash hat will save you a broken leg sort of thinking! It's just 'not' got a hope really! But probably IS more sensible to wear a crash-hat for the bit it may save, 'just in case', than not!
As an aside; curiously, in forty years of motorbiking, and plenty of competition riding in there, I can honestly say, I really cannot attribute a crash hat for EVER saving much, if any hurt! I have only come off, on tarmac a couple of times, I have to say, so prevention IS I have to say far better than protection! But, in all but one 'off' I have never suffered more than a small scratch or five to my bone-dome! Have wrecked a couple of jackets, and in serious 'off-road' competition, including falling down a 30 foot cliff on one event, many MANY pairs of jeans... and I have probably spent more on new mudguards, handlebars and levers than I have EVER spent on new crash-helmets! Which is to suggest that 'protection' is, like I say so oft about crash-hats, USING your head, not spending lots of money to stick your head in a fancy bucket ad think you have the matter covered! You DO need to look at it the topic strategically, and take a much wider view.
Which takes us Back-To-Top, and starts by asking the question, IS this gear actually worth protecting? And beyond that, if it IS, remembering that its not a fit and forget solution, or substitute for common sense and good practice!
As to the recommends? If you are going to buy and use a protection filter, get a good one. No pot skimping on it and risking added image degradation from it. As said, I bought Kood, as they are a better brand, but not so exorbitantly priced. Dependent on retailer, anything from perhaps £5-£10 per filter, its not to my mind worth risking a 'cheap' filter, especially for protection, liklely to be used for almost 100% of shots, ad I have had some anomalies and aberrations with cheap or unbranded filters, not necessarily UV's on film camera's but rsk remains, and for the small difference on price, IF you have deemed them worth the money, then not worth them making matters worse rather than better; so Lee or Hoya, or Kood, etc, avoid unbranded or the more exorbitantly priced.
Likewise the polariser. Again, I bought Kood ultra-slim for both my lenses that will take them, so I don't have to 'swap' and they are almost a semi-permanent 'fit'. About the only filter I use on digital, their effect is one you just cannot replicate in post-process or anything, they are worth the money, but they can be a lot more money, but even more so here, worth it. I have a few old liniar polarisers from the film era and one in-particular gives a very strong blue 'tint' and curious filter-fade effects, they really aren't worth stinting on.Stick to the better known brand names.
I use ultra-slim filters, to avoid vignetting issues from the mount, particularly stacking a polarser on a protection filter, after suffering it on film cameras, and with prices a lot more reasonable these days, I have one per lens that takes them. (the 18-55 & 55-300). They don't work well on wide and ultra-wide angles, due to the wide angle range of incident light causing polarization 'fade' anyway, and you dont save an awful lot of money f you have to use a step-down adapter to share filters between lenses, may as well spend that bit extra and have one per. (Especially working with wide range zooms! Be rather more onerous to have to buy one each for every 'prime' lens for each of my film cameras!).
But, that's my 'advice' all told, bar to say that a cameras no darn good unless it takes pictures, so don't be too precious about the ruddy thing! Far too many are too scared of damaging the darn things to put them at risk using them! So they sit on the back of wardrobes or get cradled under coats NOT taking pictures when they could be getting use and making memories, and, end of the day.... which would you rather have; a 'mint' example of a camera for your kids to stick on e-bay for a few pennies when you are shuffled off to the old folks home... OR pictures in the album to look at between school dinners served by women in white coats, with a seasoning of incontinence tablets!?!?!
Common sense and a bit of good practice goes a long, long way!
And, ultimate 'protection'? Well, I bought the daughter her D3100 when she started hanging upside down off climbing frames with my camera, and chucking water filled balloons about in close proximity to its sensitive electrics!!! End of the day the thing is always giong to be 'at risk', And ultimate conclusion camera gets killed and a new one bought to replace it.. so I pre-empted the conclusion and bought the replacement 'first'.. and gave it to daughter to use hanging upside down off a climbing frame or up a tree, or pricking water balloons in front of or wading into the sea with, under interesting cast iron piers etc! (Cost of entry level DSLR, could replace three or four or more 2nd hand, for the cost of one 'precious' enthusiast grade model, so what the heck!.. especially as three compacts and countless smart-phones already 'deaded' along the way!!)
Of all the early buy 'accessories' for a camera? Number one is good, fast memory cards, and spare batteries! You are far more likely to have a flat battery than a smashed lens element; you are far more likely to see that 'stunning' scene after you have filled your memory card. and taking pictures is what you buy a camera for.. so THAT is where first spend on the gadget should be prioritized.. better a picture and a broken camera, than a mint pristine camera and no pictures! At least to my way of thinking!
Remember, there will ALWAYS be a 'better' camera or another accessory out there; this moment, this photo oportunity will only be here once and fleetingly, so grab it whilst you can!
